No, the Constitution created the Supreme Court to try cases arising either as appeals or as challenges to the Constitution. They get to make their decisions. But Congress can circumscribe the decisions they can make, and the Court has no power of enforcement. The Court was not created to legislate from the bench, although they have been doing so by the allowance of a corrupt legislature and executive. (For example of a wrong decision, the Dred Scott case was decided in violation of the language of the Constitution.)
The "evidence" is the plain language of the Constitution AND the legal terminology of the time. Or do you believe in an "evolving" Constitution that tracks what the popular fads are in the meaning of words?
The plain language of the constitution only says "natural born citizens." It makes no specific mention of the required nationalities of the parents. If we're going by plain language, then that's all we have to go on. Where is the phrase "natural born" specified to include the nationalities of the parents?
"No doubt informed by this longstanding tradition, just three years after the drafting of the Constitution, the First Congress established that children born abroad to U.S. citizens were U.S. citizens at birth, and explicitly recognized that such children were “natural born Citizens.” The Naturalization Act of 1790 provided that “the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States . . . .” "
The basic idea is that the parents, or at least the father, should have been a citizen of the United States at the time of birth. The intent was to preclude any filial loyalties (or obligations) to another country. Much of the contemporary argument seeks to vitiate this objective.
Well, there's a detail in this quote that might be overlooked with your summary:
“the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States . . . .”
This appears to be applying to cases where the child is born outside the US, seemingly excluding cases in which a child was born on American soil.
No, you have to be familiar with 18th-century written style. There are two cases covered by the definition, the first one being "children of citizens of the United States", the second being the former conditioned by being "born beyond sea or out of the limits of the United States." In both cases, the requirement is to be born of citizens of the United States. This just establishes that "natural-born" has nothing to do with geographic location.
Actually, I have something. The 14th amendment, section 1, clause 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Yes, but they are not "natural-born" citizens. They can be of foreign origin and naturalized (not eligible to be President) and they can be of foreign parents and born here (the point at issue...citizens by law only, and not "natural").
No, the Constitution created the Supreme Court to try cases arising either as appeals or as challenges to the Constitution. They get to make their decisions. But Congress can circumscribe the decisions they can make, and the Court has no power of enforcement. The Court was not created to legislate from the bench, although they have been doing so by the allowance of a corrupt legislature and executive. (For example of a wrong decision, the Dred Scott case was decided in violation of the language of the Constitution.)
The "evidence" is the plain language of the Constitution AND the legal terminology of the time. Or do you believe in an "evolving" Constitution that tracks what the popular fads are in the meaning of words?
The plain language of the constitution only says "natural born citizens." It makes no specific mention of the required nationalities of the parents. If we're going by plain language, then that's all we have to go on. Where is the phrase "natural born" specified to include the nationalities of the parents?
Where a word's meaning is at issue, it is hard to credit it with being "plain." But a reasonable treatment is at https://harvardlawreview.org/forum/vol-128/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/ in the paragraph involving footnote 8 and 9:
"No doubt informed by this longstanding tradition, just three years after the drafting of the Constitution, the First Congress established that children born abroad to U.S. citizens were U.S. citizens at birth, and explicitly recognized that such children were “natural born Citizens.” The Naturalization Act of 1790 provided that “the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States . . . .” "
The basic idea is that the parents, or at least the father, should have been a citizen of the United States at the time of birth. The intent was to preclude any filial loyalties (or obligations) to another country. Much of the contemporary argument seeks to vitiate this objective.
Well, there's a detail in this quote that might be overlooked with your summary:
This appears to be applying to cases where the child is born outside the US, seemingly excluding cases in which a child was born on American soil.
No, you have to be familiar with 18th-century written style. There are two cases covered by the definition, the first one being "children of citizens of the United States", the second being the former conditioned by being "born beyond sea or out of the limits of the United States." In both cases, the requirement is to be born of citizens of the United States. This just establishes that "natural-born" has nothing to do with geographic location.
Actually, I have something. The 14th amendment, section 1, clause 1:
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt14-S1-1-1/ALDE_00000811/
Yes, but they are not "natural-born" citizens. They can be of foreign origin and naturalized (not eligible to be President) and they can be of foreign parents and born here (the point at issue...citizens by law only, and not "natural").